I was taking a break from a stack of work and watched a bit of the Australian Open on TSN here in Montréal. I saw the above attack ad by the Conservative Party of Canada, targeting Liberal Party of Canada leader Michael Ignatieff, and I was wondering if it was recycled, since the rhetoric was rather familiar. After some research, I saw that impolitical, who is always on top of these things, already blogged about the new campaign. In a phrase, “forced and desperate”. This ad is one of several attack ads on the CPC YouTube channel. I could analyze these ads but this overview in the National Post pretty much says what I wanted to say {also has the ads embedded in the post}.

I think strategically this crop of ads is phoning it in. Maybe PM Stephen Harper is believing the hype that he can eradicate the Liberals.  This “stay the course ad” doesn’t inspire and only makes sense if the Conservatives wanted to hold onto a comfortable majority in Parliament, not get one::

The rest of the ads represent, in my opinion, muddled thinking and a lack of strategic prowess. The attacks on Ignatieff are saying nothing new and border on making Stephen Harper and the Conservatives look like bullies. Attacking the NDP’s Jack Layton definitely makes Stephen Harper and the Conservatives look like bullies. Plus, here in Québec, the ads are targeting the Bloc’s Gilles Duceppe {in French, but you can get the drift with the on-screen text}::

Layton is a relatively popular leader of a relatively unpopular party. Attacking Layton, rather than the NDP, is an interesting way to go. I tend to agree with the conventional wisdom that a strong NDP erodes Liberal support by splitting the vote on the left, so attacking the NDP only makes sense if the objective is to get converts. If the strategy is to shift support from the NDP to the Conservatives, that’s an uphill battle. In 2010, those polled by EKOS who support the NDP are more likely to support {as a second choice} the Liberals, no other party, or the Greens, in that order, rather than the Conservatives. Attacking Duceppe on his home turf, as opposed to showing the positives of the Conservative Party for Québec, seems downright reckless. Bloc Québécois supporters’ second choice is no other party, the NDP, the Greens, and then the Liberals and Conservatives, in that order.

Over the holidays, I heard a pundit on CBC radio saying that it might be the end of the road for all of the party leaders including Harper. He hasn’t obtained a majority and if this is part of his bid to do so, I think it’s a risky strategy. The negativity runs the risk of coalescing ABC, anything but Conservative, sentiments and fostering strategic voting. While in the US there’s a call to tone down the negative rhetoric, the CPC is turning the heat up.

It’s always better to be lucky than good and I’ve always wondered when Harper’s luck would run out. With this advertising strategy, I wonder if his time is up.

As for the featured 2nd. round matches at the Australian Open, Venus Williams and Maria Sharapova advanced.

Twitterversion:: [blog+videos] The Offensive Offensive:: Conservative Attack Ads Target Ignatieff http://t.co/KOkTFPZ #ThickCulture

I’ve been observing the ideological war in the media in the wake of the Tucson tragedy and I’ve been wondering how Sarah Palin would respond to the fingerpointing regarding charges that her heated rhetoric may have played a role. Today, she responded with a video::

It will go down as the “blood libel” speech, as she used that loaded term to accuse the media of an unwarranted pointing of fingers at her.

Was this another gaffe -or- was this part of a very controlled and disciplined Sarah Palin who is taking upon the role as a leader? This WaPo article isn’t missing the fact that the video was a stark departure from her prior history of Tweets and Facebook updates, where she reacts with off the cuff “reflexive spasms”. The article ends with this::

“Republican operatives report that Palin has been calling around in recent weeks to seek advice not only on whether but how she should run for president in 2012. This statement might suggest she is not only seeking that counsel, but taking it as well.”

Hearing the video in its entirety, it uses very specific language invoking God and country to get her message across and frame it in a way that will resonate with her base and show she can “talk the talk” of sounding like a presidential candidate.

So, I don’t think the use of “blood libel” will be a gaffe, unless she plays into criticism of its use. I do wonder if a little contrition would have been a better tactic, in that her base is already sold on her, but contrition may have made inroads into support of the coveted moderates. I get a sense that a little of Palin’s feistiness goes a long way and showing a bit of humility could broaden her range without necessarily diluting her brand.

I saw this article by Thomas Roche linked to on Twitter, where he finds the genesis of the cartoon character-end child abuse meme. He doesn’t like how the meme, which started as celebrating an artform, took on a life of its own by morphing into the support of a specific cause. It sounds like he’s pretty peeved::

“Such epic asshattery is a the confluence of good-natured light-hearted celebration and rampant, infectious shallowness. It cheapens the cause of child abuse prevention and, just as importantly, it draws a connection between comic books/cartoons and childhood, where none should exist.”

He goes on to criticize how this One Click Activism doesn’t really do anything, which echoes Malcolm Gladwell’s “Small Change” critique of social media social activism [see criticisms of Gladwell’s article on this blog here]. Both Gladwell and Roche take a dim view of these “consciousness raising” efforts because they do precious little “real” work as diversions. Gladwell sees identity-driven social activism as being at cross purposes with the more hierarchically organized variant::

“It shifts our energies from organizations that promote strategic and disciplined activity and toward those which promote resilience and adaptability. It makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for that expression to have any impact.”

While Roche wants to shame everyone participating in what he sees as a shallow, identity-feeding enterprise::

“But Facebook Activism isn’t just stupid; it’s dangerous. It convinces people that doing next to nothing is actually better than doing nothing at all. And you know what? It’s not. If it’s better to light one candle than curse the darkness, is it the same, but less of a hassle, to just call up a photo of a candle on your iPhone? Seriously. Ask yourself. Is that the kind of person you want to be? Someone who can’t even be bothered to strike a match?”

I disagree.

First, I think a lot of naysaying regarding social movements has everything to do with discontent, simmering in the zeitgeist of these times in North America. The federal parties in Canada are lucky to get support of 30% of voters and many in the US are disillusioned with Obama’s promise of change and the Tea Partiers are advocating their own variant that isn’t necessarily in synch with the Republicans. I feel the Gladwell and Roche articles resonate with those skeptics who are critical of what they see as feel-good do-goodery.

Could there be something to these criticisms? After all, what is the point of just getting people to slap an image on their profiles.

The problem with this discontent is that it’s based on a zero-sum mentality and a conjecture that none of it matters, as opposed to the possibility that some of it might matter—a lot. The zero-sum angle assumes that these efforts are taking the wind out of the sails of more concrete efforts. I think these are apples and oranges. The attention received by being a meme that goes viral may seem like a bunch of wasted effort, but a more useful way to see this is that it raises consciousness and may motivate key people to do more organizing or mobilize resources in this direction. Is this likely? Maybe not in most cases and causes, but it’s a possibility and and a possibility borne out of the power of the Internet. In fact, I would argue that with Web 3.0 that the gaps between memes, activism, and results will be narrowed. So, pissing on the idea categorically is premature.

On my r h i z o m i c o n blog,  this post on Nestlé’s handling of social media criticism and attacks on Facebook for their use of palm oil in Kit-Kat bars shows how activism interfaces with corporations. In this facepalm tale of corporate woe, social media and the old guard media {OGM} converged to raise awareness of the issue that palm oil destroys wildlife habitat. Nestlé allegedly altered its practices due to activist pressures, so while the corporation was touting a greener approach to palm oil, Greenpeace wasn’t buying it due to practices of an Indonesian supplier, Sinar Mas, and an anti-Nestlé, anti-Kit-Kat video was circulated and hammered with—wait for it—copyright infringement. Did it matter that people were changing their Facebook profile images and posting critical comments on Nestlé’s Facebook wall? Nestlé thought so and requested users to stop doing it.

I’m not buying the arguments that social media activism merely feeds the ego or is dangerous because it takes efforts away from more real endeavours. I’m of the mind that if it increases awareness through resonance and meaning and increases motivation by just a fraction of those touched by a meme, it’s far from useless or dangerous.

Roche is seeking a stronger connection between the meme and outcomes. I can appreciate that, but when he expresses his frustration with the government and the public regarding the social ill of child abuse, his argument turns into what I see as an elitist political treatise::

“Do you want to know why kids are being abused in the United States? Because no system exists to prevent them from being abused. Do you want to know why no system exists to prevent kids from being abused? Because some very vocal Americans seem to spend much of their time being terrified that some kid somewhere who’s not their kid will get something for free, up to and including a life without abuse.

Violence against children has been endemic throughout all societies. We in the Western world had a chance, last century, to make great strides toward eliminating it. We chose to fight wars, cut school lunches, privatize national parks and pay lower taxes instead. As a result, we march into a new decade in which the kids of the world are as helpless as ever.

And legions of people out there are exactly upset enough about that to upload an image of Danger Mouse.”

I think this makes huge assumptions about anyone supporting the meme. Maybe it’s cynical of me to take issue with him on the grounds that my take is that he doesn’t get or doesn’t like how the mobilizing of the masses works. It works by making a cause “cool”, e.g., Obama 2008, and if you’re fighting something that’s cool, you need to make it uncool, e.g., adding social stigma to smoking. I say cynical, as it pretty much means that we as a society are often driven by what’s cool—or at least by things that resonate with us through meaning, no matter now tangential it is to anything “real”.

Twitterversion:: Is the attack on the cartoon-child abuse Facebook meme warranted or does Thomas Roche just not get the big picture here? @ThickCulture @Prof_K

There are times when I feel Salon.com should be accompanied by a laughtrack or at least a wide assortment of humourous sound effects from Hanna-Barbera cartoons. This week, there’s a confessional tale by a guy who loved a scam. Jason Jellick was man who says he preyed upon liberal returns policies and was willing to tell lies to get free food from McDonalds or free upgrades at 5 star hotels. These mad skills made his friends green with envy. His idea was purportedly to stick it to the man, the corporate hegemon,—not individuals, but over time it became clear that he was interested in the art of the steal. He makes the distinction between shoplifting and conning trusting individuals and gaming a system meant to ensure customer satisfaction, but those distinctions are lost on me. In consumer behaviour lingo, Jellick is guilty of slippage—consumer actions that result in losses, and the only moral high ground he can stand on over shoplifters or Winona Ryder is that his actions are harder to detect as crimes or torts.

He sets this all up by recounting a tale of his mother’s Christmas scam and his conjecture that she was a member of the enlightened bourgeoisie::

“This was something I learned from watching my mother, who knew all too well how to root out a good con. Her defining scam was the Christmas special, when, on the day after Christmas, she’d gather up the presents from under the tree and return them to the stores along with the masses — poor Mommy forced to return all of her thoughtful gifts. But unlike most of those people, she’d circle back to the stores (once the shift change had taken effect) and repurchase those same presents for vastly reduced prices. Was this out of necessity? Was it out of some need to display her cunning? Looking back, I suspect my mother had become convinced of some higher moral agenda, in which the weak (the middle class) outfox the strong (the rich). All I know is that we always got what we wanted for Christmas.”

Ha! No, mommy was a hustler and taught her kids that the ends justify the means. I’m sure mommy would say that she’s just working the system. Don’t bitch her out, bitch out the system.

Jellick goes on to chronicle how he laxed his rule of only targeting corporations once he got a sweet taste of the confidence scam, including a bizarre Minnesota motel scam that went sideways. There’s also a bit of mea culpa and penance thrown in, since Salon needs to have some semblance of a moral centre. Salon tried to use the article as a springboard for more confessional tales::

While I think that stealing from {e.g., de Certeau’s “perruque”} or engaging in antisocial behaviour towards {e.g., Darnton’s “The Great Cat Massacre”} those with power is part of everyday life, there’s a Machiavellian posture taken by Jellick that leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth.

As an aside, this is the perfect Salon article attempting to get people to rethink pathological behaviour by ascribing some sort of higher meaning to the actions. Many commenters weren’t buying it and bitched Jellick out—there are 18 pages of comments, as of 2:25 PM EST. On Twitter, there are plenty of naysayers calling bullshit on his story {e.g., see @snarkysmachine}.

I think there are social implications for Jellick’s actions. I see them as the consumer counterpart to corporate practices that push in the opposite direction. I know of an instance at Wal*Mart in the 1990s where managers had unwritten policies that denied returns. Why? It helped the bottom line, which made the department manager look good, which made the store manager look good, which made the district manager look good…all the way to the shareholder. One could argue that Jellick and the Wal*Mart example are both pathological extremes. Jellick’s alleged “duping” of capitalism and Wal*Mart’s practices to limit returns are cut from the same bolt—these are highly individualistic actions motivated by gain. Jellick does recognize his own rationalizations for his behaviours, but one gets a sense that Jellick is just mouthing the words. His values are that of the theoretical homo economicus, acting rationally in his own self interest in a world of atomized, arms-length social actors. Mommy would be proud.

Twitterversion:: Jason Jellick @Salon article on conning capitalism. The grift is the reward, but sweeter w/phony bourgeois enlightenment. @ThickCulture @Prof_K

Later today, on my other blog, rhizomicon, I’ll be doing a post on the semantic web {web 3.0}, which stems from work I’m doing in the area of semantic web and social media. In my research this morning on information ontologies, I came across Debategraph, a collaborative visualization tool that maps ideas/concepts in the realm of complex policy issues. Here’s a demo video::

The Obama administration used Debategraph for their open government brainstorm last year. You can access the Debategraph here::

A friend of mine once convened meetings on watershed management in the SF Bay Area and this type of technology would have been very useful in the consensus-based planning recommendation model being implemented. While the loud and the cantankerous could attempt to be a thorn in the side at the public meetings, it would be harder to withstand the criticism of most of the other stakeholders. Nevertheless, there is the persistent wiki problem of how status and legitimacy affects deliberation and in this instance, policymaking. What I do like is how content can be uses and repurposed in online collaboration 24/7. I was thinking of semantic web implications in policy, but that’s for another time.

Maybe the State Department should explore this to flesh out transparency policy in light of the recent Wikileaks.

Twitterversion:: Thoughts on Debategraph visual mappings of ideas 4 transparent complex policy deliberation, used by Obama admin last year @ThickCulture @Prof_K

The Obama Administration is trying desperately to halt the dissemination of documents that they feel will jeopardize lives and diplomatic relations. Today, 250,000 diplomatic cables are slated to go public on Julian Assange’s Wikileaks site and this caught my eye::

“The cables are thought to include candid assessments of foreign leaders and governments and could erode trust in the U.S. as a diplomatic partner.”

The Obama Administration has been trying to limit the blowback for about a week, preparing foreign leaders for what I’m assuming to be unflattering depictions. While Barack has tried his hand at being an internationalist, the leaked documents could undermine his standing in the world. I think it really depends on what is in the leaks and how his administration chooses to handle this.

The State Department stated it will not negotiate with Wikileaks, emphasizing the illegality of publishing the documents, as well as putting “countless” lives at risk.

I find this to be an interesting situation, as the State Department appears to be framing today’s planned leak in terms of a “clear and present danger”. Mark Theissen in an August WaPo op ed has stated Wikileaks in such terms. What’s interesting to me is that the risks aren’t clear. How are lives is jeopardy? Who is in jeopardy? Will this be a credible cause of a military or diplomatic failure? The prior restraint of free speech is allowable for reasons of national security, but where is the line between sensitive information that has national security implications and publishing documents that increase governmental transparency?

I have a sense that these leaks may be more embarrassing than compromising national security, given the response of the State Department. A more forceful prior restraint intervention would be under a great deal of scrutiny and expected to have Constitutional validity.

So, if this is a tempest in a teapot and more about good foreign relations in light of candid statements, it would resemble Harriet the Spy {h/t LinnyQat}::

“Harriet M. Welsch is a spy. In her notebook, she writes down everything she knows about everyone, even her classmates and her best friends. Then Harriet loses track of her notebook, and it ends up in the wrong hands. Before she can stop them, her friends have read the always truthful, sometimes awful things she’s written about each of them. Will Harriet find a way to put her life and her friendships back together?”

I’m quite curious to see how this plays out, in terms of the nature of what is leaked and the Obama administration’s response.

Twitterversion:: Showdown b/t State Dept.& Julian Assange’s Wikileaks on intercepted diplomatic cables.Security breach or Harriet the Spy? @ThickCulture @Prof_K

The Canadian House of Commons sent a bill {S-6} back to the Senate that would have done away with the Faint Hope clause {§745.6 of the Criminal Code of Canada-pdf}. The clause allows prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment with a parole eligibility of greater than 15 years to apply for early parole if they have served 15 years. {Canoe News was alluding to the idea that this was politically motivated, in the wake of Conservatives in the Senate killing an environmental bill, C-311}.

The Conservatives have been wanting to get rid of the faint hope clause and may eventually get their way. The Conservatives’ stance is that it re-victimizes the families by having them prepare at an earlier date for parole hearings. A Toronto Sun columnist, Jerry Agar, isn’t interested in rights and rehabilitation of convicted criminals. He wants tougher sentencing and the elimination of the Faint Hope clause for the sake of victims. In my mind, this brings up a fundamental question. Does society view the criminal as forever “bad” or is even the most notorious criminal subject to rehabilitation?

Moreover, while the rights and safety of the victim shouldn’t be discounted, at what point does the weight of a victim’s impact statement have more gravitas than the evaluations of a prisoner’s current state. I wonder about government intervention when it comes to the wishes of the victim. The attempt by California courts to get Roman Polansky extradited from Switzerland in spite of the victim’s wishes after her civil settlement makes me wonder what the guidelines should be. Specifically, how should prosecutors and the courts balance a victim’s wishes and the interests of justice?

One factor that may be influencing this is culture. European sentences for homicide can be lenient by North American {US & Canada} standards, but there appears to be a cultural norm that tough sentencing is a deterrent and metes out justice for the victim. While “vengeance” may be a strong term, I recall watching a HBO documentary on capital punishment about a decade ago and much of how the death penalty was framed was to help the victims obtain closure.

I suppose much of this boils down to whether one believes in rehabilitation. Are the Jimmy Boyles {Scottish gangster and convicted murder turned artist and writer} merely outliers in the annals of crime and punishment?

Twitterversion:: [blog] Do You Believe a Murderer Can Be Rehabilitated?: Canada’s Faint Hope Clause Clings to Hope—for now. @ThickCulture @Prof_K

This week is a busy travel week, but I’m thankfully staying put. Particularly in light of the media firestorm and passenger reactions over TSA’s full-body scanners and pat down procedures. The centrepiece of all of this is the “don’t touch my junk” meme::

Last year, I blogged about Jeffrey Goldberg going after TSA’s policies, dubbing them security theatre. He wrote an article in The Atlantic about how he snuck contraband on flights, going on The Colbert Report showing what he was able to sneak through en route to the taping.

The problem with security theatre is that it might make passengers feel safer, but it does little to thwart terrorism. Take the liquids ban for example. If liquids are found by TSA screening, which isn’t a 100% probability, it’s just pitched into a pile that goes into a landfill. None of the liquids are tested before the flight, so there’s no way to know if there was a real threat. What does this tell terrorists? It’s a numbers game. Getting caught and the discovery of an actual terror plot is a matter of probability.

It’s not feasible to test all liquids, but it insults the intelligence of passengers to think that security measures are effective. Plus, security is only as good as the weakest link in the security chain. If a passenger clears security in Amsterdam and if they’re on a suspected terrorist list and this isn’t communicated between airports and security agencies, that’s a gaping hole in security.

Another issue is security with respect to cargo and freight. Also of note is that the recent package threat from Yemen wasn’t found by chance, but by counter-terrorism intel. What I’ve been reading on the issue is that its the intel, not the security theatre that matters.

On CNN a few minutes ago, there was a story on the issue and mention of a GAO report calling into question the effectiveness of the full-body scanners. Moreover, there is another report that alleges that the scanners do a poor job at detecting things without edges. So, if you have a pancake-shaped flat explosive, it would be hard to catch. An ASU researcher, Peter Rez, found that the probability of dying from a terror strike and from radiation emitted from the scanners is the same. His concern::

“The thing that worries me the most, is not what happens if the machine works as advertised, but what happens if it doesn’t.”

It’s apples and oranges to compare this technology to X-rays, given that TSA employees aren’t healthcare professionals and X-ray machines don’t get the throughput of an airport.  I cannot find evidence that there’s proper training and failsafes to prevent accidents. My take is that the technology is offering little security benefits above existing measures {which may be doing precious little in terms of thwarting real terrorism}, at added cost, and added health risks.

Public opinion is turning on the TSA, as we approach the 10 year anniversary of 9/11. I think the public has a sense that this is being sprung on them, which is possibly a TSA communication failure. If it turns out that the GAO report {CNN could not obtain a copy} and Rez’s work starts to foster doubts with the media, the public, and policymakers, the TSA will be on the firing line. While John Pistole, TSA head is trying to spin that they’re trying to balance security and privacy, it’s clear that their policies are evolving and that the agency is rolling out technologies and procedures that aren’t passing muster::

“Yes, what we have done is go back to those entities such as the GAO (Government Accountability Office) and the inspector general who have done covert testing to show that we are not being thorough enough in our screening because they’re able to get through the screening, gone back to them and to say, OK, how can we be better informed if we modify our screening then what are the risks we deal with, so that’s what we’re dealing with.”

The scanners cost $130,000—$160,000 and are part of an increasing US tendency to move towards technological solutions in matters of security. I’m getting a sense that the deployment of the full body scanners is a boondoggle and that the Obama administration should review TSA policies and perhaps make an example out of them in order to show an interest in eliminating wasteful spending.  Overhauling an unpopular agency, cleaning house, and cutting costs, well, that seems like low-hanging fruit to me.

Twitterversion:: [blog] Thanksgiving approaches w/TSA pwned for costly scanners & invasive patdowns. Will Obama administration clean house? @ThickCulture @Prof_K

I was talking to a colleague of mine who has travelled quite a bit to México since he was a kid. His take on the increasing violence of the border towns tend to just affect those involved in criminal activities or tourists doing things they have no business doing.

Lately, the violence of the cartels has been resembling scenes from Breaking Bad. One of the things going on in Nuevo Laredo, the terminus of I-35 and a key port of entry between the US and México is a feud between rivalling factions that were once allies, the Zetas and the Gulf Cartel. President Felipe Calderón and the Mexican army has been deployed. The WSJ reports corruption and a state of anarchy in northern México, while gunfire from street battles reaches US soil over in El Paso and a collapse of tourism in many border towns further erodes the economy amidst a lingering recession. {While there is increased violence, the reality for tourists is that 70 Americans have been killed as “innocent bystanders“ since 2004. Nevertheless,the US State Department has issues a travel warning and has pulled consulate employees.}

While Hilary and Barack might disagree on whether México resembles Colombia of years past, the White House is increasingly concerned about the violence and is likely to be spending more on combatting it.

This isn’t a clear cut case of good guys and bad guys, making US policy dicey to say the least. It’s one thing to talk about a war on drug trafficking and addressing issues of corruption, but there’s no scorecard and no clear cut way to know who can be trusted and citizens are better off keeping their mouths shut. Last year, The Atlantic’s article, “The Fall of Mexico”, made this clear with how civil rights are going out the window with Calderón’s militarization::

“Meanwhile, human-rights groups have accused the military of unleashing a reign of terror—carrying out forced disappearances, illegal detentions, acts of torture, and assassinations—not only to fight organized crime but also to suppress dissidents and other political troublemakers. What began as a war on drug trafficking has evolved into a low-intensity civil war with more than two sides and no white hats, only shades of black. The ordinary Mexican citizen—never sure who is on what side, or who is fighting whom and for what reason—retreats into a private world where he becomes willfully blind, deaf, and above all, dumb.”

Quibbling over comparing México to Colombia 20 years ago fails has implications for US policy in that it determines how much US drug policy is contributing to the strength of the cartels and the violence over turf. Three ex-Presidents, of Brasil, Colombia, and México, wrote a report titled “Drugs and Democracy: Towards a Paradigm Shift” [pdf-English], emphasizing a public health approach to dealing with the problem and curbs demand. I feel this excerpt is worth quoting::

“The European Union policy focusing on the reduction of the damages caused by drugs as a matter of public health, through the provision of treatment to drug users, has proved more humane and efficient. However, by not giving appropriate emphasis to the reduction of domestic consumption in the belief that the focus on harm reduction minimizes the social dimension of the problem, the policy of the European Union fails to curb the demand for illicit drugs that stimulates its production and exportation from other parts of the world.

The long-term solution for the drug problem is to reduce drastically the demand for drugs in the main consumer countries. The question is not to find guilty countries and allocate blame for this or that action or inaction, but to reiterate that the United States and the European Union share responsibility for the problems faced by our countries, insofar as their domestic markets are the main consumers of the drugs produced in Latin America.”

A prohibition/criminal approach to drug enforcement hasn’t been effective. The report cites statistics::

The report cites that increased expenditures on the “War on Drugs” hasn’t affected demand or price. On the other hand, depenalization of consumption {which isn’t the same as decriminalization, but a move towards a more humane approach to drug enforcement and addiction} in both North America and the EU hasn’t resulted in increased demand.

The problem being is that the current state of drug enforcement has created a highly lucrative black market for drugs by organized crime cartels, much akin to the US experience with the prohibition of alcohol.

I don’t get a sense that the Obama administration and the Attorney General’s office are really open to moving towards a public health/depenalization approach to the drug trade. AG Eric Holder stated he was strongly against California’s Prop. 19, which would have permitted distribution of marijuana subject to local regulation and taxes. His concerns? That it would impede going after traffickers of pot and harder drugs like cocaine. Paradigm shifts are tough, but one would hope that there would a more holistic approach to dealing with the drug problem and how its market is fostering crime, corruption, and violence.

Twitterversion:: [blog] Violence & the drug wars in northern México. US policy implications for @whitehouse, Obama, Clinton, & Holder @ThickCulture @Prof_K

This Chronicle of Higher Education article, “The Shadow Scholar”, was posted to a friend’s Facebook wall yesterday and I’ve been enjoying the fracas in the comments {I personally love the grammar pedants}, which are more interesting than the article itself. The article does know its audience and how to extract the most emotion and righteous indignation from those in the ivory tower and the blowback from those who realize that the institution of higher learning is what it is—increasingly, a business.

The article is written in half-sneer {hint:: all part of the formula} that chronicles an academic mercenary’s career path and his work of crafting prose and poetry for those with ambitions beyond their abilities. Perhaps this is part of a trajectory of a more egalitarian system that is open not just to those with pedigrees, but to those who, let’s face it…can navigate the system. The article describes the clients who are desperate and willing to pay to get through their academic hurdles, from admissions essays to doctoral dissertations. He points the finger squarely at acadème itself, which is bound to raise hackles. He takes direct aim on the field of education::

“I, who have no name, no opinions, and no style, have written so many papers at this point, including legal briefs, military-strategy assessments, poems, lab reports, and, yes, even papers on academic integrity, that it’s hard to determine which course of study is most infested with cheating. But I’d say education is the worst. I’ve written papers for students in elementary-education programs, special-education majors, and ESL-training courses. I’ve written lesson plans for aspiring high-school teachers, and I’ve synthesized reports from notes that customers have taken during classroom observations. I’ve written essays for those studying to become school administrators, and I’ve completed theses for those on course to become principals. In the enormous conspiracy that is student cheating, the frontline intelligence community is infiltrated by double agents. (Future educators of America, I know who you are.)”

Then, there’s this wry observation::

“The 75-page paper on business ethics ultimately expanded into a 160-page graduate thesis, every word of which was written by me. I can’t remember the name of my client, but it’s her name on my work. We collaborated for months. As with so many other topics I tackle, the connection between unethical business practices and trade liberalization became a subtext to my everyday life.”

I think many in acadème have stories of know of less than honourable behaviour by colleagues and acquaintances. I know of a Masters of Healthcare Administration student, at a large public university in California, who graduated after submitting a thesis with statistical analyses he outsourced but was clueless with respect to what the printouts meant. More disconcerting was the fact that he didn’t have a clue on what consisted of an interesting research question, let alone how one would go about crafting a research design. His advisor gave him comments, but the student quickly deleted them off of his Blackberry—a combination of “who cares, I passed” and a gnawing sense of inadequacy, as this student wasn’t accustomed to receiving anything but high praise for his work and knew he just “got by”. The advisor could have held up his degree, but that would just mean more work and I’m sure he his plate was full.

Regarding academic scholarship, I know of questionable tactics regarding authorship played by those navigating the tenure game. Grad students get shafted, coauthors get dumped. I think it would be naïve to believe that there aren’t mercenaries out there helping the ambitious get tenure and promotion, ghostwriting books, chapters, and solo-authored articles.

Is higher education broken and, if so, why?

Well, higher education is a business, but it also is one of the last, enduring feudal systems. I feel this combination is a recipe for disaster in these late-modern times. Being a business, colleges and universities need to profit maximize, but are also tied to a more feudal tradition, with concepts like honour and mentorship are regarded highly. I recall being in a business faculty meeting and we were discussing ethics and cheating in the classroom. Talk was circulated on how Chinese students often see “cheating” as part of business and defended their actions as learning how to game the system. Well, if you think about it, gaming the system in varying degrees is what we’re all being taught—it’s what’s rewarded in our everyday lives.

Entrepreneurs are often celebrated in our culture, as risk taking mavericks that innovate and create new paradigms, Schumpeterian growth, and wealth. Take a look at this TED talk with entrepreneur Cameron Herold::

About 5 minutes in, he freely admits to cheating and having others do his accounting assignments at Carleton. His take is that entrepreneurs don’t do accounting, they hire accountants. It’s all about figuring out the system and gaming it. Sounds like those accounts of what the Chinese students were allegedly saying. Getting back to the original article, one commenter {3. skaking} makes a good point about whether the author’s services are in less demand where there’s an emphasis on education, not evaluation. Getting back to business side, the question is whether or not there’s a market for truly “educated” students versus “evaluated” ones. I’m not so sure there is, but I hope one can be developed. It should be a charge of higher education to make this happen.

Twitterversion:: [blog] Commentary on “The Shadow Scholar” article in The Chronicle of Higher Educ. Plagiarism, feudalism, & capitalism http://url.ie/86an @ThickCulture @Prof_K